http://www.news24.com/Travel/S...o-ever-okay-20140113

Cape Town – In November last year, US television presenter and self-styled hardcore huntress, Melissa Bachman, caused global outrage when she posted a photo on Facebook of herself posing with a magnificent maned lion she had shot and killed at Maroi Conservancy in Limpopo.

In light of the widespread critique Bachman’s hunt received, it comes as quite a surprise that now, less than two months later, a permit to hunt a black rhino in Namibia has fetched US$350 000 (R3.7m) at an auction held by the Dallas Safari Club in the US.

While the auction was met by similar response from animal rights groups and conservationists, with certain members of the Safari Club even receiving death threats, the fact that it was held in the first place calls into question the authority of conservation heavyweights.

While dedicate influential individuals do join forces with world conservation bodies to protect endangered species, why is support from lawmakers so lacking in this regard?

As Jeffrey Flocken, North American regional director of the Massachusetts-based International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), pointed out: "This auction is telling the world that an American will pay anything to kill their species." He added that it was, in fact, making a spectacle of killing an endangered species.

According to an AP report, Ben Carter, executive director of the Safari Club, has defended the auction, saying that all money raised will go toward protecting the species that has been the target of a widespread poaching scourge, as rhino horn is believed to hold medicinal value in certain cultures.

He also said the rhino that the winner will be allowed to hunt is old, male and non-breeding - and that the animal was likely to be targeted for removal anyway because it was becoming aggressive and threatening other wildlife.

However, considering that only 4 000 black rhinos remain in the wild, world-wide (down from 70 000 in the 1960s) and less than 1 800 in Namibia, one can’t help but feel that culling even one of these rare creatures is making a critical dent in the population.

Talk to us – do you think the fact that an animal is old, aggressive and non-breeding makes it okay to hunt an endangered species? Or is the US Safari Club sensationalising the act, forcing society to take a look at its ugly reflection.

What alternative fate would you suggest for the rhino in question?

Tell us in the comment section below, share your thoughts on our Facebook page or tweet us at @News24Travel. You can also send us an email to info@news24travel.com

Whatever we do, as far as hunting goes, will get negative comments from the ignorant idiots who are making money out of people's ignorance about wild life.

Rhinos, like every other animals, have to pay their way into this life.

If they do not have financial value, no one is going to raise them.

As simple as that.

Do you think we would have any cattle if we did not kill thousands every day?

Ignorant idiots is a pretty good description of them.

Long ago I have decided - motivated by nothing else that I have a 'right' to decide - that hunting is OK. Since having made this decision and living it out I've often been "attacked" by persons who have decided that hunting is not OK. During the ensuing arguments - always amicable, as would simply walk away if my antagonist tries any other technique - I've heard many emotional requests that I should change my views on hunting. Despite often asking for some real non-emotional motivation as to why I should change my view that hunting is OK, I've yet to get any real motivation. OTOH I have changed drastically the views of some, but admittedly only a few, former non-hunters by presenting logical, scientifically motivated and factual arguments that support the view that hunting is OK.

The type of argument that I would use against an "all rhino hunting is bad" individual would probably include a demand that this individual make a suggestion as to how to prevent this particular non-breeding aggressive old rhino from fighting and killing young breeding age bulls. Naturally there can be many suggestions made, but short of capturing and caging it away from young breeding age bulls there is very little that can be practically done to prevent the old bull from having a possible significant negative impact on the breeding population. All of these involve restricting the freedom and choices of the old bull. That is a strict no-no in the animal rightists circles. It will take me not very long to totally drive my arguing opponent into a small little corner from which he/she will have to admit that an aggressive old bull that is past the breeding age does NOTHING positive for the conservation of the species.

From here it is but a small step to show how much such a bull can actually contribute towards the conservation of the species as a whole by being properly hunted. The $ 350K paid for that right on the auction should go a long way towards convincing the arguer that hunting of such a bull is indeed OK.

My congratulations to all involved in getting that show on the road and my best wishes for the guy with enough guts [can replace that with money ] to buy the hunt: May the hunt be enjoyed far beyond your most optimistic expectations! May you be spared for many years in good health to show off your trophy to very many. May you be financially very successful so as to do even more for rhino and other conservation efforts.

As said, and as many have found in arguments about it, that without very good factual arguments it is very difficult to change my mind. I also know that with good argument technique the facts help me to sway the anti hunters, including specifically those that argue against the hunting of this particular old bull, can actually be convinced and swayed!

Good luck.

Actually, the point is not hunting.

The point is far too many people have taken it upon themselves to try to stop others participating in their own legal activities.

How many of us campaign against the many things we do not accept others doing?

I bet not many.

Because we have a LIFE!

And they don't.

It is odd, that these "Dedicated/Concerned Conservationists" are so vocal about this one rhino yet seem to have no real interest in getting involved with the efforts to stop poaching.

All these folks are concerned about is their "Warhol 15 Minutes"

Saeed summed it up pretty well right here:

quote:

Actually, the point is not hunting.

The point is far too many people have taken it upon themselves to try to stop others participating in their own legal activities.

How many of us campaign against the many things we do not accept others doing?

I bet not many.

Because we have a LIFE!

And they don't.

In my opinion issues such as this one and gun control are nothing more attempts at people control. These folks do not care about animals or guns their goal is to control other people.

I tell my liberal friends that when they insist that government stop me from hunting is the day I will support government taking golf courses and converting them to housing projects, because golf is a total waste of land and poor folks need a pretty place to live too. Sometimes they actually get my point.

quote:

Because we have a LIFE!And they don't.

That is the way I look at almost all protesters.

Andrew I know you can argue a point of view cool calm and collected.

I do not do as well with greenies. However, I have found over the years though that it's way better for them to suffer the effects of anger than it is for me.

I was at the DSC meeting where this auction occurred as I know lots of other AR guys and gals were as well.
There was quite a bit of media attention there(PETA or similar protestors out front) and there was an article in the Sunday Dallas paper. One couple brought their two children I believe from Atlanta to protest it.
The media coverage is 10% factual and accurate and 90% sound bites catch phrases and totally inaccurate statements.
On the radio in Minneapolis this morning, a talk show bashed it saying that the rhino will be tied to a tree and shot.
We have to stand tall and keep telling the facts.

when I run into someone who starts in on hunting I can usually diffuse the situation very quickly.

1. Are you a Vegan?
2. Do you own anything made from leather?

The discussion tends to be very one sided after that. Its very easy to use the "Vegan beliefs" to turn it around own someone and show them how they themselves are causing the deaths of all these poor animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Pieter Kriel:
Andrew I know you can argue a point of view cool calm and collected.

I do not do as well with greenies. However, I have found over the years though that it's way better for them to suffer the effects of anger than it is for me.

+1 Pieter.
Hans Vermaak and myself where chatting about these social media Eco extremists, he said to me, "if you going to stoop down to throwing shit at people, you're only going to get your hands full of shit".

So when dealing with these people on social media, remember that dozens of their "friends" are going to read your response. You'll probably never swing the person who started it but ALL their friends will read the logical responses we give.
We're trying to educate the friends , not the moron.
This thought process helps me stay calm.

Wonder if it occurs to folks that animals do get old and just plain die. Kinda like us. Why not sell the old baggers off and make a pile of money to put back into conservation efforts for the betterment of the herd

Ya, I know, they'd just say I should be auctioned off next for even thinking such a dastardly thing, ha.

I never can figure out the liberal mind set. They don't like guns or hunting so they want them banned. I can't imagine developing a personal philosophy of forcing someone to hunt or own a gun because I like doing so.
The antis and liberals are why God made the Aleutian Islands. That is where they need to be sent.
Cal

Liberalism is a type of mental illness and it is never productive to debate with them or even listen to anything they have to say.

Would you argue with someone who was diagnosed with schizophrenia or dementia? Of course not.

quote:

Originally posted by Thunder Head:
when I run into someone who starts in on hunting I can usually diffuse the situation very quickly.
1. Are you a Vegan?
2. Do you own anything made from leather?

Not even vegans. I had a debate with a relative who was barbequing steaks on his backyard grill, he said that killing animals was wrong. I of course brought up his cooking the steaks; he responded that he didn't kill the animals himself. Does that sound logical? I think that most people are like that, they'll eat animals and fish for their entire lives, but they think it's strange to track, hunt, and kill it yourself.

quote:

Wonder if it occurs to folks that animals do get old and just plain die. Kinda like us. Why not sell the old baggers off and make a pile of money to put back into conservation efforts for the betterment of the herd

As aging human beings, past our breeding ability, we offer ourselves to science, organ transplant etc........all for the benefit of the human race.

Perhaps an aging Black Rhino, well past his breeding ability would also like to offer himself for the benefit of the Black Rhino race ??

The Bible instructs us to control the animals, is this not what God would be asking us to do then? Just a thought.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za...-rhino/#.UtTeQ_uDV_h

A black rhino in Namibia is about to get shot. Legally, of course. The permit was auctioned off for a not insignificant $350,000. The public outcry – including death threats – was reserved for an unsympathetic target: an anonymous American hunter. Equally predictably, the outcry is entirely wrong.

Nobody batted an eyelid in 2012 when Namibia instituted a policy of permitting five black rhino hunts per year, in the hope of deriving some revenue from animals that are, for conservation reasons, surplus to requirements.

Last week, however, it was reported that an unidentified Texan hunter bid $350,000 for one of the permits, and immediately, the hysteria flared up.

Ben Carter, director of the Dallas Safari Club which hosted the permit auction, told Agence France-Presse, a wire service, that his staff and their family members had received “more than a dozen ... death threats” and reported the matter to the police.

One of my correspondents blamed it all on former US president Ronald Reagan’s cuts to the education and mental health budgets, suggesting that Texans are both stupid and insane.

Meanwhile, Namibian wildlife authorities have defended the sale, saying that the funds are to be used for anti-poaching and other conservation measures, and that the targeted animals are individuals that in any case would have to be culled to ensure the health and survival of the rhino population in that country.

I’ve had a number of occasions to argue in favour of commercial game hunting, farming rhino, free trade in rhino horn, and hunting lions.

Not because I like hunting, you understand. I’m no gung-ho sinews-in-the-teeth hunter. I’m not even a sophisticated high-tech ninja assassin.

However, rationally speaking, it is clear that animals that have economic value to their owners get protected by those owners. Even if they’re owned by a government, the ability to earn a larger sustainable revenue from a thriving wildlife population than mere photographic tourism can provide is a powerful incentive to conserve and manage valuable and rare species.

If this is true for some species, why not for all of them? If this is true at some population levels, why not also for critically endangered species?

The era of the colonial big game hunter demonstrated the consequences of unowned wildlife. The destruction of once-thriving populations of large game was a clear case that an asset that is everyone’s responsibility gets exploited by everybody, and protected by nobody. The same happened in many post-colonial African countries, as it did in Asia and South America. Uncontrolled poaching drove several species to extinction, and left many others decimated and reeling. Ocean fisheries are another case, in which property rights are notoriously hard to establish and enforce, leading to acute threats to species survival that are hard to combat.

Campaigns to halt species decline, and in particular the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), have largely been ineffective. As I wrote two years ago, such prohibition campaigns are notorious, for not succeeding at best. They sometimes even make matters worse by artificially raising the price of a commodity, thus making it profitable for crime syndicates to establish black market trade.

I made the case in the context of rhinos, and the Property and Environment Research Centre (PERC), an independent lobby group that advocates private solutions to conservation problems, makes a similar case in the context of tiger conservation.

Ironically, the few species that CITES officials cite as success stories are, in fact, cases where private property rights and legal farming or hunting saved species from the brink of extinction. Among them are crocodiles, turtles and perhaps the most eloquent example, the South American vicuña. These creatures, prized for their fine wool, are once again thriving, thanks to a programme legalising trade in vicuña fleece, and extending property rights to local communities.

Of course, neither private property rights nor legal trade in animal products are panaceae. They do not remove the threat of poaching altogether, as more recent academic research on vicuña shows. Stock theft remains a problem even with common farm animals such as sheep and cattle.

However, by providing a legal alternative to black-market products, placing downward pressure on prices, and raising revenue for farms and conservation agencies, legal trade makes the threat of poaching considerably less acute and easier to combat. Poaching happens with sheep and cattle, but it is not a financial crisis for farmers, nor an existential problem for the species.

There are a few misconceptions that need addressing when discussing legal hunting, or legal trade in the products of endangered species.

The first is that there is a single right way to manage any given species. If there is, everyone might have an opinion, but few likely know the right solution. The management of game ought to be up to the private owners and individual conservation agencies. They, like the Namibian conservation authorities in the case of the black rhino under their care, are best placed to judge which animals need to be culled for conservation reasons, and which additional animals can safely be taken without harming the remaining population.

The same is true for the question of whether animals are more productive when their products are harvested by non-lethal means, such as shearing vicuña or dehorning rhino, or by killing animals for their products, like we do with many animals for leather and meat. This is a decision best made by farmers. This is a local, practical decision, informed by business and conservation considerations. Not all farmers will do things the same way. Not all farmers will even make the right choice. But by distributing the management responsibility among multiple private farmers, rather than establishing a single centralised policy, one reduces the impact of mistakes. If some farmers fail, or act irresponsibly, it will harm only their own businesses, and the animals on their property, rather than the wider population.

Another factor that inflames public sentiment is money. The irony is that while high prices paid for hunting permits tend to whip up resentment, it would be far worse if conservation authorities or game farmers couldn’t get high prices for their animals.

A similar dynamic is at play when environmental groups and newspapers trumpet prices for bluefin tuna. Last year, a record price of $1.76 million was paid for the first fish of the season in Japan. According to Andrew Revkin at the New York Times, environmentalists claimed that this “masks a real and pressing problem”, namely declining fish stocks – as if it would make sense for an abundant fish species to fetch such a price. This year, the ceremonial sale earned just five percent of what was paid last year, “despite signs that the species is in serious decline.” Can’t win. Does a low price or a high price mask these signs?

The price mechanism is a fascinating thing. When a commodity is scarce, relative to demand, prices rise. This has the double effect of incentivising higher production, if possible, and rationing consumption, if necessary. Conversely, if scarcity declines, so will prices, and more people will have their demand for the commodity met at reasonable cost.

So, a high price for a hunting permit (or a tuna, or a walnut side table) is to be expected if the species in question is under pressure. That means they have high revenue potential, while demand will be limited, both of which serve to protect the resource. And should the price decline over time, it will be an even better sign, because it means that demand is being sustainably supplied by producers.

The notion that economic value trumps altruism as an incentive to breed and protect rare game is borne out by hunting ranches in the very same state of Texas where this black rhino hunting permit was sold. Although Reagan made Texans crazy and stupid, ranchers in the Lone Star State have brought several species back from the brink of extinction. This happened neither by accident, nor by the sort of green idealism espoused by self-righteous urban elites that condescend to call people who aren’t like them stupid.

Three antelope that are extinct in the wild in their native Africa, the dama gazelle, addax and scimitar-horned oryx, thrive in Texas. According to the state’s Exotic Wildlife Association, as quoted by the Houston Chronicle, the populations grew from two addax, nine dama gazelle, and 32 oryx in the 1970s, to thriving herds of 5,000 addax, 800 dama and 11,000 oryx today.

Only, they’re under threat again. This time, environmental groups such as Friends of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States – the same groups that led the outcry over the black rhino hunt – managed to get the species listed under the US Endangered Species Act. Ranchers, interviewed for 60 Minutes on CBS, have declared that their revenue potential is the only thing that keeps them alive, and a hunting ban would ensure their extinction.

Priscilla Feral, the CEO of Friends of Animals, retorted that she’d rather see them extinct than accept legal hunting. She may well get her wish, but last I checked, we frown on people who actively try to wipe out endangered species.

So-called environmentalists quite openly say they’re willing to let endangered animals go extinct to advance their radical green agenda. They are supported by a howling mob wielding torches and pitchforks, coming after the children of people who disagree with them. Evidently, their ideology is a smokescreen for pathological, psychopathical misanthropy.

Is that an ideology worth saving from lunatics who scream blue murder? Perhaps the rest of us – economists and conservationists alike – should have a rational discussion about how economic value is more likely to ensure the survival of endangered species than any measures we’ve tried to date.

In this sense, $350,000 is a very good reason to allow someone to shoot a black rhino.

This animal would have had to be culled anyway, and the revenue from the hunt is explicitly earmarked for anti-poaching and conservation efforts. But even if neither of these were true, and the profit went straight into a greedy rancher’s back pocket, the price paid for a trophy hunt is a splendid incentive to sustain healthy populations of rare and endangered animals. Especially when hunting bans, nationalisation, emotional appeals and most other tricks we’ve tried have failed to save endangered species. DM

quote:

Originally posted by BEGNO:
I tell my liberal friends that when they insist that government stop me from hunting is the day I will support government taking golf courses and converting them to housing projects, because golf is a total waste of land and poor folks need a pretty place to live too. Sometimes they actually get my point.

When you stay in Hawaii, in the hotels will be signs recommending you don't have your towels washed daily, conserve water, etc. Then when you take a morning walk, you will see sprinklers pouring thousands of gallons of water on golf courses.

The hotel thing is not about conservation it is about their saving laundry expenses, plain and simple. I will reuse towels when they discount the following days tab.

Why an American hunter, wasn't the show and auction bidding open to all?

Sport hunting is the only thing that will safe the Rhino.

Sport Hunters have done more for the Conservation of Wildlife, than all others combined.

Not just the animals that are hunted but ALL wildlife.

Damn, Saeed, you have a way with words. Better than quotes from the Dalai Lama! LOL! Thunder Head: I once had a very anti-hunting legal secretary. She wanted to argue with me all of the time about my hunting endeavors. I then got a hold of a couple of papers that my wife gave me that she used with her first grade students. They listed what items all of us use that are actually made from cows, and the other from pigs. It even shocked me to find out all of the things that we, as human beings, use that come from cows and pigs. (Besides the obvious leather and meat items) That put an end to it, because if she tried to bring it up, I'd always just remind her to look at the two lists. (See my list started under another post-the list will include cows, pigs and sheep)

The quick answer to the question of whether hunting a rhino is ever okay is yes.

White rhinos truly were on the brink of extinction before South African game farmers were allowed to to raise and sell them at a profit and U.S. hunters were allowed to import their trophies.

Hunting, no matter how you feel about the way white rhinos are hunted, saved the white rhino. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Hunting rhinos as a conservation tool has been tested and proved effective.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:

When you stay in Hawaii, in the hotels will be signs recommending you don't have your towels washed daily, conserve water, etc. Then when you take a morning walk, you will see sprinklers pouring thousands of gallons of water on golf courses.

Does that water come from the same source?

See Zig's post.

I get very provoced by this. when they dont see the whole pickture and want to sacrifice the whole race for one unusefull individual.

to generate this amount of money by photosafaries, how meny individuals need to go on safari?? and how does that ecologicaly add up with al the flights and travels ect ect! compared to one individual to leave 350K

I belive that this is the way to save the tigers as well. Ti auction out a very limited nr of hunting licenses.

And then it just prove their hypocratic nature when we can see this video from Norwegian newspapers this week regarding an elephant in kruger who charged a car with tourist. And the elephant was killed due to this incident.

http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/76...urister-med-snabelen